I think there is some confusion with your me too. It could be a very powerful tool. It would not require you to be stuck to the hip of the pilots in any way. It just needs a simple wording fix.
I am not a lawyer, so feel free to change up the wording that best fits." If another crew member receives more favorable terms than herein, the the flight attendant shall receive those terms also. If another crew member receives terms less favorable than the terms herein, than the terms agreed to herin shall remain in force". To me, it just seems that simple. Again, I am not a lawyer so I'm sure someone may shoot me down with some legal loophole regarding the above. The problem is that there seem to already be some very poorly thought out and missing terms. I would really like to know the true role of the supposed attorney that worked on the committee.
Thanks to whoever posted that open link I was able to peruse this agreement and can give you a great example. Remember when Mr. Flores was so sure of himself about the crew rest seats and area requirements. He was shot down in flames and lost the argument. Now, looking at your new agreement the wording is pretty much cut and paste from what you have now. That may be fine for the flights you are stuck with now. Wait until you have flights from Philly to Tokyo. Might be a ways off but considering your terms are five years and it could take a couple more years to negotiate. You will now have a long haul flight with still no clearly defined crew rest. (Currently it just say the same coach seat as passenger) I would certainly think at the very least they would have put more clear definitions of what your crew rest seating should look in any possible new routes or aircraft. (Remember the company wanted this contract for a merger). With a few exceptions almost all possible merger combinations already do these long haul flights. If Airways actually takes delivery on those A350 that at this point is still a paper airplane they are are suppose to arrive within the time frame of this agreement. a me too written in the way a state above would at least cover you on such events as the current pilot FAR's require pretty specific crew rest requirements. Of couse it should have already been written into this agreement but seems to be an after thought. This is just one very small example of many I am sure.
This is why everyone needs to read this very, very, carefully. Just one word change on some of these cut and paste sections could make a HUGE difference in your life.
You are never going to reach a perfect agreement. There will be give and take somewhere. I will even say some of the things which have been observed are small improvements. However, you must tie it all together. That pay raise is offset by a lot of other factors within the agreement and by outside forces as well. The current agreement you are now under was done when? 2004? How much was gas and a loaf of bread then. The prices on these items are here to stay and must be figured into the overall agreement. Look at all the items you are giving up and the outside economic forces your pay raise might just be a wash. This will be even harder for your coworkers on the west. They are supposedly giving up quite a nice insurance package. However, for them the wage increase is a significant one. They may believe at first that this offsets any loss there. Problem is it is not just about co-pay! What about actual benefit loss. How much more premium do I have to pay for less overall benefit? This is just one area. They are also loosing out on a significant amount of vacation and other perks. There is more than just a pay raise and some supposed merger protections. Look at them very carefully!
